Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Tries To Defuse Glass "Myths"

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the not-all-opinions-are-myths dept.

Google 363

As reported by Beta News, Google has tried to answer some of the criticism that its Glass head-mounted system has inspired with a blog post outlining and explaining what it calls 10 "myths" about the system. Google's explanation probably won't change many minds, but in just a few years the need to defend head-worn input/output devices might seem quaint and backwards.

cancel ×

363 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A lense cover (5, Interesting)

bit trollent (824666) | about 6 months ago | (#46558293)

If Google had just included a lens cover then Glass would just be a status symbol for ultra-nerdy hipsters.

With an uncovered camera always conspicuously pointed in everybody's face Google Glass is an unmistakable reminder of our Orwellian world.

Re:A lense cover (0, Troll)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46558413)

yet idiots have no problems with phones being pointed at them. just poke the screen every once in a while and they think you're trying for a high score on candy crush.

On a side note, who the hell invented those stupid draw a pattern to unlock? It might just be me, but the sudden movement of someone pulling out a phone always catches my eye and I see the pattern EVERY single time.

Re:A lense cover (5, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 6 months ago | (#46558433)

Pointing a phone at faces is considered rude in many cultures specifically because it implies you're taking pictures. Vast majority of people who use phones point the camera at a downward angle, so all it could take pictures of is people's feet.

Re:A lense cover (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 6 months ago | (#46558527)

Still could be recording conversation though.

Re:A lense cover (4, Insightful)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 6 months ago | (#46558613)

Well said!
There is a big difference between holding a phone vertically at eye hight (=most probably taking a picture) and the diagonal position used to crush candy or communicate via text or do other stuff.
I think it is a sign on the wall that 99% of the criticism is about taking pictures and only 1% about things like distraction and so forth. It is all about consent and not knowing if someone is (not) taking a picture. And even if the wearer is not actively engaged in taking pictures, remote access tools might be able to take over. There is a reason I got the webcam taped off on my laptop...
I just simply fail to see why a webcam strapped to a face is a nice idea.

Re:A lense cover (5, Insightful)

sahuxley (2617397) | about 6 months ago | (#46558537)

Go into a bar or strip club and point your camera phone every direction you turn your head. See how long it takes for one of those "idiots" to knock you out.

Re:A lense cover (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46558571)

Aren't they just filled with sad wimpy nerds who have to pay to see women get naked?

Re:A lense cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558597)

And huge bouncers to police the sad wimps.

Re:A lense cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558667)

Or happy, muscular nerds that train in multiple martial arts and happen to have a girl at their side who likes to look at the naked ladies as well?

I know, pics or it didn't happen... right?

Well, fuck you and your preconceptions of who goes to strip clubs.

Re:A lense cover (1, Offtopic)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 6 months ago | (#46558751)

Wimpy nerds have expensive toys, they can't afford stripper clubs. And besides the lights out time on their mothers basement is too early for the bar scene.

Re:A lense cover (2, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 6 months ago | (#46558547)

People don't generally walk around holding up their phone like they're recording you. When they are, we have the opportunity to say "don't take my picture!" or "don't record me!'

Google Glass is always pointed at the person they're talking to, and always gives the impression that they're recording.

I like the pattern unlock. People's fingerprinted screens frequently give away their pattern, so the lock is worthless. Just look for the patterned smudge, and you're in.

Re:A lense cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558643)

So you have no moral problem invading a person's privacy, huh? Jerk.

Re:A lense cover (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 6 months ago | (#46558935)

I'm not quite sure how you got that from my post. No, I don't go around recoding people without their permission. People ask me to do it a lot, because they want some nice pictures or video to put online. I've deleted perfectly good pictures I've shot, because someone who I didn't have permission from got in the shot.

And no, I won't own Google Glass, because ... well ... it's a waste of money. And I don't want to piss people off by making them think I'm recording them all the time.

There are reasons I'd like to have a wearable video eyepiece, but Google Glass doesn't fulfill those requirements.

Re:A lense cover (2)

peragrin (659227) | about 6 months ago | (#46558717)

just play candy crush and other such touch and drag games and watch the pattern unlock vanish into a mess.

Re:A lense cover (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 6 months ago | (#46558949)

Google Glass is always pointed at the person they're talking to, and always gives the impression that they're recording.

And this, of course, is the crux of the problem. Between people keeping glass on when it's probably rude to do so, and people having a psychological response that somebody wearing glass must always be recording them (or at least readily in a position to do so).
Faced with a person who wears an HD button cam, however, they do not have this psychological response.. even though their every move may very well be recorded; ignorance truly is bliss in this case.
Doesn't change that people who use Google Glass can easily decide to take it off in personal situations, of course.

Re:A lense cover (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46558673)

yet idiots have no problems with phones being pointed at them.

It's pretty obvious when a phone is being pointed *at* you instead of being used to play games/text/whatever.

And it will provoke a reaction from "idiots". Try it and see.

Re:A lense cover (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 6 months ago | (#46558863)

I don't know which anti-social world you live in, but I have never met anyone who did not have a problem with a phone pointed at him by a stranger without asking - or a camera, for what its worth.

Re:A lense cover (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46558939)

You must live in one of those countries that have no clue what subtlety is. You also seem to have no clue how self-involved people are and how rarely they notice what is going on around them. You might be interested to know there's such things as public transport were people are in close proximity and actually try to ignore each other.

Try leaving your mom's basement every once in a while, watching people on tv isn't the same as seeing what they do in reality.

Re:A lense cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558919)

yet idiots have no problems with phones being pointed at them. just poke the screen every once in a while and they think you're trying for a high score on candy crush.

On a side note, who the hell invented those stupid draw a pattern to unlock? It might just be me, but the sudden movement of someone pulling out a phone always catches my eye and I see the pattern EVERY single time.

You will probably not get that high score in Candy Crush if your method is to hold the phone vertical in front of your face at all times while scanning your surroundings. And, if you do this, you can be sure that people would react.

Re:A lense cover (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558453)

Or, we already live in an Orwellian world* and this gives the individual a copy of the video. This is probably the only way to fight such a surveillance state. Who watches the watchers? The watched.

*of sorts

Re:A lense cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558525)

Not really, when people are actually using them, they looked all spaced out and creepy. I thought this nerd was blatantly ogling a woman, but it turned out he was using his google glass. Or maybe he was surreptitiously photographing her, who knows. Anyway, can't imagine wearing these will ever become socially acceptable.

Re:A lense cover (2)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 6 months ago | (#46558765)

There was a time when people using mobile phones in the street were mugged not because the thief wanted their phone, but because people using mobile phones were considered to be antisocial snobs and deserved to get beaten up. People would sometimes just take the phone and throw it onto the floor to break it. Nowadays using a cell phone is the most normal thing in the world. When you were making a call using an earpiece, people used to wonder why you were talking to yourself while nowadays, when you really are talking to yourself, people will just assume you're making a phone call. The same will happen to glass.

Re:A lense cover (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46558629)

Better still: deploy the Glass beta to specialized professionals first, such as surgeons or lawyers, talking Glass up as a source of supplementary information during operations and trials. As soon as the tech gets featured on a few episodes of "Scrubs" or "Suits," the coolness factor is established and everybody will be wanting it.

Re:A lense cover (2)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 6 months ago | (#46558767)

Google sells information, we are the product. The more they know the more money they make. Google glass isn't about what the customer wants, it's all about spying. Putting a lens cap on google glass would undermine their ability to spy.

edge of the Uncanny Valley (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#46558635)

If Google had just included a lens cover then Glass would just be a status symbol for ultra-nerdy hipsters.

I can see it. It's about the "uncanny valley" [wikipedia.org]

We'd still see situations like this poor woman who appears to have Borderline Personality Disorder: http://valleywag.gawker.com/gl... [gawker.com]

However, there's something about the design of Glass, or rather the **lack** of design, that makes the wearer look off-puttingly non-human. It's like the Bluetooth in-ear headset ^10...and only a few steps from actual "Borg"

Glass looks like dental corrective headgear, and it turns out having a smartphone strapped to your face doesnt add much functionality for all the drawbacks.

Quaint and backwards? (5, Insightful)

Megol (3135005) | about 6 months ago | (#46558301)

Like the expectation of not every action being tracked, recorded and analysed? Like the expectation of privacy and freedom?

I don't hope we'll ever come to that scenario.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558327)

It's your choice. You can certainly choose not to use Google products and block most of all Google's hosts. That's what I do.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558397)

Other people using Google Glass to record information about others, which Google knows about, is not something one can control.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558463)

You can punch the guy with glasses in the face. Then he'll probably stop wearing them.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558419)

There is no expectation of privacy in public. And you are likely already recorded 30 times a day by various cameras, license plate readers, and all sorts of other stuff (depending on where you live).

Not sure what freedom has to do with anything. Would you argue that people dont have the right to take photos/videos in public? What about convenience stores and banks with CCTV cams?

Yes, you're quaint and backwards. Glass puts recording in the hands of individuals rather than (just) business or government.

This is like calling someone's dash cam a threat to your driving freedom.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558473)

There is no expectation of privacy in public.

Really, so it would be okay to randomly search someone's person? It would be okay to take pictures of women's panties by pointing a phone under their skirts?

There should be privacy, even in public places. Expectations are irrelevant. The person who used "expectation of privacy" was a shortsighted idiot, because it means that the government need only start violating people's privacy routinely and any expectations to have privacy would vanish.

And you are likely already recorded 30 times a day by various cameras, license plate readers, and all sorts of other stuff (depending on where you live).

That doesn't make it right. We need to distinguish between "Someone might see me." and "I'm being recorded everywhere I go." There is a difference, and a big one. License plate readers and such are especially morally repugnant, and the government shouldn't be allowed to have them.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558499)

Really, so it would be okay to randomly search someone's person?

Being secure in one's person is different than privacy. You have no expectation in the US to not be photographed.

It would be okay to take pictures of women's panties by pointing a phone under their skirts?

What does underskirt have anything to do with anything. C'mon that's just a BS appeal to emotion and wayyyy off topic. No one is doing that with Glass.

That doesn't make it right. We need to distinguish between "Someone might see me." and "I'm being recorded everywhere I go." There is a difference, and a big one. License plate readers and such are especially morally repugnant, and the government shouldn't be allowed to have them.

Who says the government has them? Most License plate readers are being done by private companies IIRC per a slashdot article here a few weeks ago.

And why shouldn't a business be allowed to have a camera? What about a tourist? Are they allowed to take pictures?

Also what makes you think Glass is recording everything?

Re:Quaint and backwards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558817)

Being secure in one's person is different than privacy.

It is a form of privacy, too, and it remains so even when you're in public.

What does underskirt have anything to do with anything.

Use your brain. That person said that there is no expectation of privacy in public places. If you're in a public place, someone could stick a phone under skirts and take pictures or record videos, and all this would happen in a public place.

Who says the government has them?

Anyone who has been paying attention. By the way, you think the government can't access the data that these corporations collect? As the whole NSA affair has proved (and many events long before that), that is nonsense. If the government wants the data, companies will be all too willing to cooperate, even if the government doesn't have a warrant or anything.

So, until we put some serious limits on the government's powers, you'd better be almost as wary of private companies as you are of the government.

Also what makes you think Glass is recording everything?

I don't, but they don't need to, either.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 6 months ago | (#46558511)

There is no expectation of privacy in public action. Nobody ever says the last word, but it makes all the difference.

By action you mean.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558601)

breathing? I don't even know what you're trying to say by adding "action" to the end.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46558693)

There is no expectation of privacy in public.

Sure there is. Try going around getting up close to people, looking over their shoulders to see what they're doing, etc.

See how long you can last before being punched in the face and told to "mind your own business".

Re:Quaint and backwards? (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 6 months ago | (#46558711)

There is no expectation of privacy in public. And you are likely already recorded 30 times a day by various cameras, license plate readers, and all sorts of other stuff (depending on where you live).

Yes. But don't you see any difference between a camera at a fixed location run by a corporation that (in most locales) have to follow certain laws how to handle cameras and the resulting video streams AND a mobile camera that can essentially film anyone anywhere _and_ is connected to a person of likely questionable morale (as evidenced on the Internet). But I think that being recorded 30 times are already (let's be generous) 28 times too many.

Not sure what freedom has to do with anything. Would you argue that people dont have the right to take photos/videos in public? What about convenience stores and banks with CCTV cams?

Yes, you're quaint and backwards. Glass puts recording in the hands of individuals rather than (just) business or government.

This is like calling someone's dash cam a threat to your driving freedom.

I was trying to show that this is just another step into the control society I and many with me (as evidenced on the Internet ;P ) don't like. With the NSA and other organizations increasingly tapping into private data that Google Glass user you saw can be used for tracking you for the government or private corporations/hacker groups/militant animal protection groups or even (gasp) TERRORISTS! :)

But that's just paranoia right? Me, I think that Andy Grove is right.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558873)

NO expectation of privacy, ok, but I'd like the world to not subvert the "verba volant, scripta manent" status of things which has survived more than 2000 years of history, and with good reasons.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558591)

Sousveillance, not surveillance.

Re:Quaint and backwards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558701)

Like the expectation of not every action being tracked, recorded and analysed? Like the expectation of privacy and freedom?

I don't hope we'll ever come to that scenario.

Curious as to exactly what in the hell makes you think we're not already there.

Those fighting against Glass are yesterdays generation. Today's generation of narcissists will rule the world tomorrow, and they clearly don't give a flying fuck who sees what. They're the ones inventing tools like Glass, and privacy will take a back seat to profits.

Yea, because glassholes will have learned (1, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 6 months ago | (#46558305)

I expect that getting beaten up, arrested and the like will make even the worst glasshole realize that what they are doing is completely unacceptable.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (0)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | about 6 months ago | (#46558347)

HAHA Glassholes. I love it. You know damned well that everything recorded on the stupid glass thing is analyzed by Google. And then the NSA gets their hands on it. I'm not doing anything illegal so I don't care but it's the principle involved.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558461)

are you sure you aren't doing anything illegal? That's the thing, with laws they way they are, everyone is breaking one law or another. Law is in a sad state of affairs, and giving the government more weapons to criminalize good people is not a good thing. Don't kid yourself, our law system is out of control.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (0)

xmark (177899) | about 6 months ago | (#46558617)

This should be modded up.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (2)

gweihir (88907) | about 6 months ago | (#46558515)

You are not doing things that you _think_ are illegal _now_. Maybe a bored prosecutor will think differently in a few years and financially ruin you just the same or even manage to convince a jury (of typically: idiots) that you should go away for a long time. Or maybe you develop some ideas that those in power do not like to much the same result.

Also refer to http://online.wsj.com/news/art... [wsj.com] "You Commit Three Felonies a Day".

"Glasshole", btw., is already a while old and not my creation.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (0, Troll)

ccguy (1116865) | about 6 months ago | (#46558403)

I expect that getting beaten up, arrested and the like will make even the worst glasshole realize that what they are doing is completely unacceptable.

Can you elaborate on what you think, exactly, Glass users are doing other than carrying a device on their face? What do you think a Glass user can do that a phone user can't?

Really - the camera on Glass is not useful at all to record or photograph someone without them knowing. If I take a picture of you at 10 meters the picture is useless. There's no zoom, no flash... however if I take a $99 camera with a 8x optical focus I can easily take the picture from a distance and no one is going to look at me funny because I'm taking pictures on the street.

So to sum it up: Get a life. If you see me with Glass just ignore me. I'm not taking pictures of you (or anyone else). I just like the convenience of not taking the phone out of my pocket.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 6 months ago | (#46558519)

That you even need to ask clearly indicates that your moral development as a person has failed. But by all means, try it, break common decency and see what it gets you.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558623)

You're about the only one with questionable morals in this thread. There are some valid objections to glass but you cross the line so far you're bordering on psychotic.

No, really.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558625)

You need to clarify your assertions so they make sense. "Because camera2(!*&6182900" isn't good enough of an argument.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558665)

Could you please elaborate on what you think without ad hominem insults?

Why his (and apparently mine) moral development failed, because I can't understand your reasoning and don't think that anyone with Glass around me is breaking common decency and can do anything more than anyone with mobile phone can do (and sometimes even lot more effectively than the one with Glass)? Can you please elaborate?

Just to be clear I don't have Glass or plans to get one in foreseeable future. I think it is a cool gadget, that I don't have any reason for getting.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (3, Insightful)

ccguy (1116865) | about 6 months ago | (#46558695)

That you even need to ask clearly indicates that your moral development as a person has failed. But by all means, try it, break common decency and see what it gets you.

So far no issues. Not everyone is a real asshole worrying about what I do or don't. Everyone that has approached me about Glass just wanted to try it out. Only time I was asked not to carry it (at a posh restaurant where everyone was taking pictures with their phones) I just took it off (note: Now I wouldn't, because I have prescription lenses - if I can't wear glasses at a restaurant I just go somewhere else).

Anyway the fact that you think my moral development has failed because I wear Glass really says a lot about you. Wearing Glass is enough for you? Nothing else matters?

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558583)

What do you think a Glass user can do that a phone user can't?

Smoke a cigar with their butt and then release a pattern of intricate of smoke signals using only their well practiced sphincter muscle?

The smoke signal will read: "HELP! I belong to a douche!"

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 6 months ago | (#46558649)

What do you think a Glass user can do that a phone user can't?

Nothing. They just do it without the physical motions that would otherwise provide the visual cues to indicate what they're doing.

Really - the camera on Glass is not useful at all to record or photograph someone without them knowing.

Bullshit.

There's no zoom, no flash... however if I take a $99 camera with a 8x optical focus I can easily take the picture from a distance and no one is going to look at me funny because I'm taking pictures on the street.

Bullshit, again. I'm in Seattle. We get a lot of tourists. They're easy to spot with their cameras. And people do step out of the way of their shots.

So to sum it up: Get a life.

Got one already. Me having a life does not mean that you are not an ass hole.

You being an ass hole does not mean that I do not have a life.

meters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558719)

10 meters = 32.8 feet

I, on the other hand, find it more interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558559)

that some people turn into frothing psychotics the moment somebody turns up wearing a camera on their face.

There is something fucking bizarre in human psychology that there's such a gap between the people who say "people who wear cameras on their face are weird/bothersome" and the people jump all the way to "the moment I see somebody wearing a camera on their face I will brutally assault them and destroy their property".

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558561)

What's sad is advocating violence in thinly veiled comments. Violence directed towards people just wanting to use new augmented reality tech. And all it does is take 10 second videos and take pictures.

You are truly pathetic.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (2, Interesting)

meerling (1487879) | about 6 months ago | (#46558653)

Beating up people is called Assault and is illegal.
Arresting someone that isn't breaking the law is itself illegal.
(Taking pictures in public, as well as using a heads-up display device in public are both totally legal, so long as you aren't driving.)
Calling someone a 'Glasshole' for simply wearing a specific accessory is not only close-minded and uncalled for, but totally rude.
(Try waiting for them to do something to deserve the insult, like insulting people without just cause.)

As far as I'm concerned, the 45 minute battery life is not a 'feature', it's a huge freaking defect.

Also, the price is currently WAY too bloody high. In my opinion it's only worth about $80 new.
Feel free to disagree. ;)

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558721)

I expect that getting beaten up, arrested and the like will make even the worst glasshole realize that what they are doing is completely unacceptable.

Uh, I expect the asshole on the other end of the felony battery charge would realize that their actions are completely unacceptable too.

Sorry, but you're not going to convince me that a sane course of action is beating the shit out of someone for wearing Glass in public. You're not going to convince a cop or judge of that either. Use your damn head.

If you want to prevent this from happening, the easiest way to do it is to ensure Glass becomes a complete flop by simply not buying it. Unfortunately, Google is apparently determined to ensure that does not happen, regardless of what the masses want.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#46558727)

I expect that getting beaten up, arrested and the like will make even the worst glasshole realize that what they are doing is completely unacceptable.

I expect that beating up a "glasshole" will get YOU arrested and the like. Note that wearing Google Glass is NOT a crime, nor is it justification for assault & battery.

Looking like dork is not a myth. (4, Interesting)

angrykeyboarder (791722) | about 6 months ago | (#46558323)

You might as well have highwater pants, a short sleeved white dress shirt, and a pocket protector.

Forbes seems to refute some of Google's claims her (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558343)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/18/researchers-google-glass-spyware-sees-what-you-see

Some technologies just rub people up the wrong way (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 6 months ago | (#46558359)

And Glass is one of those those technologies.

Re:Some technologies just rub people up the wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558445)

The reply on Google+ by Mark Daku makes a good point: there's a lack of physical cues to using the Google Glass that make it comparable to Bluetooth head sets/earpieces in their use, and which affects how other people perceive the device. In my experience, Bluetooth earpieces are still considered extremely douchey even though they've been around for quite some time now. I think Glass is doomed to the same fate.

Recording where you are look challenges P7 (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#46558361)

"Myth 7 - Glass is the perfect surveillance device"

Having something recording where you are looking is the main aspect that makes it such a perfect surveillance device, more than size or form factor.

They debunk this by saying that you can put together much more discrete recording devices. That is true.

However, if you think about it if Glass or something like it really were to become prevalent, it would be the perfect surveillance device - because it's always in a great position to record things, and also hiding in plain sight. Sure you CAN put together something else that works as well and is not as visible (though it's tough to have it looking where you look the way Glass does, or prevent it from being accidentally blocked), but that takes either a lot more effort or money.

People are just more comfortable with recording devices that make it more obvious when someone is recording by motion - holding up a phone, or even a wrist for a smart watch. Glasses possibly recording anything when someone is doing something people do naturally (just looking around) is what creeps a lot of people out.

Re:Recording where you are look challenges P7 (1)

ccguy (1116865) | about 6 months ago | (#46558469)

Glasses possibly recording anything when someone is doing something people do naturally (just looking around) is what creeps a lot of people out.

If you are on the street and I record you with Glass, not only I need to be close but I also need to be stopped and looking at you. Directly. You are going to notice for sure. The option of course is that I just walk by and get a useless shot. You probably won't notice though. However if I take my phone out of my pocket and fake it a bit I can probably get a lot of video before you realize I'm recording you.

About surveillance, I must say I prefer there's lots of cameras on the streets controlled by regular citizens than lots of cameras controlled by the government.

Re:Recording where you are look challenges P7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558689)

If you are on the street and I record you with Glass, not only I need to be close but I also need to be stopped and looking at you.

Judging by the movies used to promote the Glasshole Experience, that's a load of hogwash.

Oh wait, are you saying Google is lying about their product in the adverts?

Not myths (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 6 months ago | (#46558365)

I don't care about the 'myths' that talk about Glass being distraction, whatever. People are distracted by many things, shiny objects, their phones, car crashes, etc. I don't care.

Here is what I do care about: Glass does not have to record all the time, but I don't want to be recorded by people at all. When I step into a store I can be recorded, but those recordings are there for a reason: security, theft investigations, etc. I can live with those! I can avoid going into stores that break that promise!

I can't avoid being looked at and recorded by all the idiots around me, apparently whose only reason to live is to post everything to FB and every other social hysteria clone sites. I don't want to be scanned, catalogued and recorded by entities that I don't personally deal with. I am against all government surveillance too, by the way, and the morons with cameras all around us provide copious amounts of data on everything and everybody around them specifically to the systems and entities I completely distrust and personally loath, thus from my POV this is not a myth - Glass is dangerous to my personal privacy.

You can say that I cannot expect privacy in public, however I choose to put myself into public but I do not choose to put myself into surveillance programs that are trans-public.

FB is trans-public, I don't have an account and I don't want to be there. I don't provide my pictures to online systems and don't want others to do it either. I don't have a problem with people taking matters into their own hands on this and yanking those devices of faces of the wearers and simply stomping on them.

Pretentious neckbeards must die (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558373)

Just throw a basketball at their face. We already know they can't catch.

Too bad they can't dismiss the truth (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46558381)

that you look like an idiot.

In just a few years (4, Funny)

artor3 (1344997) | about 6 months ago | (#46558395)

I'm telling you man, in just a few years, NOT having a calculator on your watch is going to seem quaint and backwards!

Fond Memories of the calculator watch (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#46558425)

Is it sad that I used to love my calculator watch? It probably is. But I can't even imagine wearing any watch anymore, much less something like the calculator watches I used to love...

Perhaps smart watches actually will do well because things are cyclical, and the time for super-bulky tech watches has come again. But since I already rode that wave, I'm sitting this one out.

Re:Fond Memories of the calculator watch (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 6 months ago | (#46558891)

Is it sad that I used to love my calculator watch? It probably is. But I can't even imagine wearing any watch anymore, much less something like the calculator watches I used to love...

Perhaps smart watches actually will do well because things are cyclical, and the time for super-bulky tech watches has come again. But since I already rode that wave, I'm sitting this one out.

I didn't need a calculator watch, but I still got one. Sort of like a tablet. I don't need one, but I wanted one and got one. And it has a calculator also! =)

My favorite was the pacman watch I had, able to play pacman on the go. http://www.digital-watch.com/D... [digital-watch.com]

Indicator (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46558423)

My biggest objection to Glass is that there is no way for anyone else to know when it is on. Sure it will not be recording all the time but I only care it it is recording when it is pointed at me. How about a small led (it does not have to be red) that is on when Glass is on. I don't mean recording because snap shots can be taken in a split second. Yes it will make Glass even more dorky but I think it would help with people's acceptance.

Re:Indicator (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 6 months ago | (#46558659)

My biggest objection to Glass is that there is no way for anyone else to know when it is on.

Except for the light that comes on when you speak a command or record video, there's absolutely no way to know.

Re:Indicator (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46558731)

What I mean is the light to be on whenever there is power to the hardware. If it can respond to a voice command it is on and the light should be on. I also can not found anywhere that there is a light visible to someone other than the Glass user. If there is power to the Glass the light should be on.

GoPro HD vs. Google Glass (5, Insightful)

DutchUncle (826473) | about 6 months ago | (#46558429)

When I see someone wearing a camera for total recording on a ski slope, or on a bicycle trail, I don't feel bothered. Fat and unphotogenic, perhaps, but not bothered. OTOH the one time I saw someone walking around with a Google Glass on a normal day on a normal street, no special activities, no special event, nothing active to be watching, I felt: Why is this guy watching me?

It's like noticing another person in a crowd looking at you vs. noticing a policeman looking at you.

If you have to diffuse myths you've already lost (1, Insightful)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about 6 months ago | (#46558451)

Successful, groundbreaking products are loved at first sight.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 6 months ago | (#46558491)

I would mostly agree with this. There are certain products that once you see them you get a feeling that you must have it now!!!

There are even products that you think you must have but then they don't get used.

And once in a blue moon there is a product that does take some getting used to. But these are quite rare.

People for instance complain that the Segway is too expensive. But even free I am not sure that many people would regularly use them. The Roomba seems brilliant but most people who buy them have a long list of disappointments. (I still want one). Even sensible things like radar detectors (where they are legal) make a whole lot of sense yet most people don't buy them and most people speed.

So I see Google Glass being even lower on the list than MS Surface for products that they are marketing hard with little consumer buy in.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46558685)

Smearing and blurring a myth does not do any good. You want to disarm or defuse it.

Ich bin nicht ein Grammarnazi.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558633)

Back in the 1990s owning a cell phone made you a "yuppie asshole" in a lot of people's eyes, and a lot of bars and restaurants banned them. Although that was probably more of a class envy thing versus distrust of the technology.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 6 months ago | (#46558771)

Back in the 1990s owning a cell phone made you a "yuppie asshole" in a lot of people's eyes, and a lot of bars and restaurants banned them. Although that was probably more of a class envy thing versus distrust of the technology.

I'll bet it had a hell of a lot more to do with the technology than you think.

People didn't want open microphones in a bar 20 years ago any more than they want someone walking around with a camera on their face today.

And likely for the exact same reasons.

Re: If you have to diffuse myths you've already lo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558775)

I think texting and smart phone apps (Facebook, iChat, what's app, etc) is what solved this. No one cares if an asshole is ignoring his date as long as we don't have to listen to him talking too his friends loudly. Nobody talks on phones anymore.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558755)

If only the Dice-holes understood this before they invented Slashdot.Beta. No amounts of false myth-busting will mitigate this disaster.

"Ginger" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558455)

Remember "Ginger", it was going to transform society! Cities will be rebuilt all around "Ginger", the most amazing invention of our time!

Then it turned out to be an overpriced electric scooter (the Segway). Yawn.

These dumb google glasses (I refuse to call them "glass", that sounds stupid) are exactly the same thing. An overpriced, overhyped gadget for hipsters.

They'll be piled high on tomorrow's trash heap, along with Ginger, and all of the Zunes.

Mobile Porno perving apps (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 6 months ago | (#46558477)

I suspect that most people will think that people are walking around with google glass displaying porn. Plus the #1 app is going to be a filter that takes people around you and shows what they will look like naked. Or will do a face recognition and search a database to see if they ever put naked photos on the internet.

So my new myth is that 69% of people will Google glass are mostly being pervs.

Re:Mobile Porno perving apps (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 6 months ago | (#46558821)

You know, I was sceptical at first, but now I can see a great future for glass. Millions of people will buy them once those apps come out!

Re:Mobile Porno perving apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558847)

Plus the #1 app is going to be a filter that takes people around you and shows what they will look like naked.

Given the average obesity rate, no thank you.

Seriously, take a look around you next time you're in public and ask yourself if you even want to see a fraction of those people naked.

Just bear in mind, would-be banners: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558497)

Just bear in mind, would-be banners: Glass can be attached to prescription lenses

well don't bring your prescription glass to my home or my office or you'll have hard time seeing

thank you good day

Cyborg's Are People Too! (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#46558507)

Not that I agree with remembering everything I see, but when I upgrade to ocular implants, opposition to my vision is going to seem far more hostile than "quaint and backwards" to me.

There was a time when some demanded others not to meet their gaze. Oh how they'd have loved to forbid recollection or even erase the very memories of their transgressions from the minds of those they oppressed. Try as they might the tyrants could not keep reality from existing. Be careful, humans, history has a way of repeating in new and more horrible ways than those of the current cycle dare dream.

Protip: Organic chauvanists are as wrong as human chauvinists or gender chauvinists or racial chauvinists.

I already know who's side I'll be fighting for. Since the first human hefted the first stone tool machines and man have helped each other prosper. Long has it been established that ones who forbid others wield technologies are quick to render themselves irrelevant. Those that fight against the natural order by which humanity has gained its prosperity over all other organic life are like apes who could speak but refuse: Indistinguishable from the other primitive and bloody minded animals.

Awareness and Life itself are processes of reflection on experience, encoded molecularly in DNA, structurally and chemically in brains, symbolically in cultures, and now digitally in the cells that make up the world wide neural network. You are merely one result in a sea of outcomes from the universe's struggle to gain awareness of itself via producing more perfect expressions capable of reflecting more precisely ever larger and more detailed descriptions of reality. To fight the nature of the universe is to lose against the laws of physics and entropy themselves: Adapt or become extinct.

Re: Cyborg's Are People Too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558791)

Thanks ray k

The actual blog (2)

houghi (78078) | about 6 months ago | (#46558607)

Re:The actual blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558699)

Myth 8 - Glass is only for those privileged enough to afford it

"The current prototype costs $1500 and we realize that is out of the range of many people." ..yep

"But that doesn’t mean the people who have it are wealthy and entitled." ..ok

"In some cases, their work has paid for it." ..you mean some people actually work for a living? how quaint

"Others have raised money on Kickstarter and Indiegogo." ..you expect people to beg for money to buy one? How about sell a kidney?

"And for some, it’s been a gift." ..yes, that stops it being for an overpriviliedge geek elite.

Thanks for making me puke.

Not realy debunking privacy (1)

houghi (78078) | about 6 months ago | (#46558651)

They just say that there are a LOT of camera's. When you read it, it actualy acknoleges the breakdown of privacy.
At a presentation about the Google Glass, they basicaly said about privacy concerns : "We don't care. We will find a way to make it legal."

Dicks Getting Punched Not New (3, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 6 months ago | (#46558655)

Dicks getting punched for being dicks is nothing new. If you had walked through a college party ten years ago, taking pictures of people without getting their attention first, it wouldn't take more than ten photos before your camera met an untimely demise. The new thing here is the device making it impossible to tell when you are being a dick, not the reaction to such dickish behavior.

To those who claim that glassholes are doing nothing wrong, try this little experiment: Go to your local Wal-Mart, when the parking lot is busy with people walking in and out, take out your digital camera, and walk through a busy part of the parking lot. Squat down behind each car, and take a close-up photo of the license plate. Make sure it is very clear what you are doing.

Frankly, I don't think you've got the balls to do it, because you know it is wrong. And if you do, whether because you are a big enough dick not to care or because you genuinely don't understand that it is wrong, I give it less than ten minutes before someone fervently explains to you that your behavior is uncivil.

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 6 months ago | (#46558897)

Dicks getting punched for being dicks is nothing new. If you had walked through a college party ten years ago, taking pictures of people without getting their attention first, it wouldn't take more than ten photos before your camera met an untimely demise. The new thing here is the device making it impossible to tell when you are being a dick, not the reaction to such dickish behavior.

To those who claim that glassholes are doing nothing wrong, try this little experiment: Go to your local Wal-Mart, when the parking lot is busy with people walking in and out, take out your digital camera, and walk through a busy part of the parking lot. Squat down behind each car, and take a close-up photo of the license plate. Make sure it is very clear what you are doing.

Frankly, I don't think you've got the balls to do it, because you know it is wrong. And if you do, whether because you are a big enough dick not to care or because you genuinely don't understand that it is wrong, I give it less than ten minutes before someone fervently explains to you that your behavior is uncivil.

Uh, sorry but your shitty example here is well, rather shitty.

People pay extra at the DMV for custom license plates to be made. Therefore, that is an object that people are actively trying to get complete strangers to pay attention to them, their plate, or their car (or all three).

I will give you credit for picking the right parking lot. Guaranteed to get some ignorant moron in a Wal-Mart parking lot willing to go to jail on assault and battery charges for attacking someone doing something perfectly legal.

Yup, right parking lot and slice of society indeed.

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 6 months ago | (#46558917)

To those who claim that glassholes are doing nothing wrong, try this little experiment: Go to your local Wal-Mart, when the parking lot is busy with people walking in and out, take out your digital camera, and walk through a busy part of the parking lot.

With you so far....

Squat down behind each car, and take a close-up photo of the license plate. Make sure it is very clear what you are doing

...and then you lost me.

Is this something 'glassholes' do? They squat down and take pictures of license plates using their Google Glass?

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558929)

Why the fuck is 'taking pictures of license plates' wrong? They're in a public place you idiot... sure, they might complain, but boo hoo...

Most people need to grow the fuck up and realize that 'public' infrastructure has been doing that since the technology existed and get over it.

It's "uncivil" sure, but people/organisations have been doing that for a decade now and either most people haven't noticed or bothered to care.

What we need is some more actual privacy rights at the core of it all and to ignore or just use all of this Glass bullshit as yet another driving force behind the need for change behind all of the mass surveillance.

Get a grip you loser. A lone moron with a high priced low rez camera strapped to his/her head is much less to worry about than the other ten that are looking right at you. Sure, once they're not $1500 a piece and everyone's wearing them - they might be something to be concerned about. Less expensive and higher resolution sets in fixed locations with basically infinate recording run a stupid amount less these days and are emplaced about anywhere anyone really needs to go.

Project idea (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 6 months ago | (#46558663)

Time for a new kickstarter project: "Burn that Glasshole"

It's basically a glass with a laser fitted in the frame.
It directs at any Google Glass (tm) camera in sight.

when..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46558807)

When you have to post an article defending your product like this, you have already lost the battle.

The ONLY reason for google to make these was to insert itself more deeply into peoples private lives, to gather MORE information about them, and to gather more information about the people they are surrounded by.

They should have just put a damn light on it (1)

KingTank (631646) | about 6 months ago | (#46558893)

So people would know when they're being recorded. It's ruined now because even if they add one, people will forever wonder if you just have an older version without the light.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>